Switch to: References

Citations of:

Duty and the Beast: Should We Eat Meat in the Name of Animal Rights?

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (2019)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Welcoming, Wild Animals, and Obligations to Assist.Josh Milburn - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (6):1-20.
    What we could call ‘relational non-interventionism’ holds that we have no general obligation to alleviate animal suffering, and that we do not typically have special obligations to alleviate wild animals’ suffering. Therefore, we do not usually have a duty to intervene in nature to alleviate wild animal suffering. However, there are a range of relationships that we may have with wild animals that do generate special obligations to aid—and the consequences of these obligations can be surprising. In this paper, it (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What Would the Virtuous Person Eat? The Case for Virtuous Omnivorism.Christopher A. Bobier - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (3):1-19.
    Would the virtuous person eat animals? According to some ethicists, the answer is a resounding no, at least for the virtuous person living in an affluent society. The virtuous person cares about animal suffering, and so, she will not contribute to practices that involve animal suffering when she can easily adopt a strict plant-based diet. The virtuous person is temperate, and temperance involves not indulging in unhealthy diets, which include diets that incorporate animals. Moreover, it is unjust for an animal (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • New Omnivorism: A Novel Approach to Food and Animal Ethics.Christopher Bobier & Josh Milburn - 2022 - Food Ethics 7 (1).
    New omnivorism is a term coined by Andy Lamey to refer to arguments that – paradoxically – our duties towards animals require us to eat some animal products. Lamey’s claim to have identified a new, distinctive position in food ethics is problematic, however, for some of his interlocutors are not new, not distinctive, and not obviously concerned with eating animals. It is the aim of this paper to bolster Lamey’s argument that he has identified a novel, unified, and intriguing position (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Is there a convincing case for climate veganism?Teea Kortetmäki & Markku Oksanen - 2021 - Agriculture and Human Values 38 (3):729-740.
    Climate change compels us to rethink the ethics of our dietary choices and has become an interesting issue for ethicists concerned about diets, including animal ethicists. The defenders of veganism have found that climate change provides a new reason to support their cause because many animal-based foods have high greenhouse gas emissions. The new style of argumentation, the ‘climatic argument for veganism’, may benefit animals by persuading even those who are not concerned about animals themselves but worry about climate change. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • On the Margins: Personhood and Moral Status in Marginal Cases of Human Rights.Helen Ryland - 2020 - Dissertation, University of Birmingham
    Most philosophical accounts of human rights accept that all persons have human rights. Typically, ‘personhood’ is understood as unitary and binary. It is unitary because there is generally supposed to be a single threshold property required for personhood. It is binary because it is all-or-nothing: you are either a person or you are not. A difficulty with binary views is that there will typically be subjects, like children and those with dementia, who do not meet the threshold, and so who (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Should We Eat the Human-Pig Chimera?Christopher Bobier - 2019 - Food Ethics 5 (1-2).
    Scientists will soon be able to grow human-transplantable organs in pigs. This paper focuses on the question of whether it is morally permissible to eat genetically altered pigs after harvesting their organs. Despite a lack of scholarly discussion of this question, the impetus for it is straightforward. There is no reason to think that peoples’ taste for pig will subside when scientists reach the point of being able to growing mature human organs inside them. In this paper, I argue that (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Freegan Challenge to Veganism.Bob Fischer & Josh Milburn - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (3):1-19.
    There is a surprising consensus among vegan philosophers that freeganism—eating animal-based foods going to waste—is permissible. Some ethicists even argue that vegans should be freegans. In this paper, we offer a novel challenge to freeganism drawing upon Donaldson and Kymlicka’s ‘zoopolitical’ approach, which supports ‘restricted freeganism’. On this position, it’s prima facie wrong to eat the corpses of domesticated animals, as they are members of a mixed human-animal community, ruling out many freegan practices. This exploration reveals how the ‘political turn’ (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Animal Ethics of Temple Grandin: A Protectionist Analysis.Andy Lamey - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (1):1-22.
    This article brings animal protection theory to bear on Temple Grandin’s work, in her capacity both as a designer of slaughter facilities and as an advocate for omnivorism. Animal protection is a better term for what is often termed animal rights, given that many of the theories grouped under the animal rights label do not extend the concept of rights to animals. I outline the nature of Grandin’s system of humane slaughter as it pertains to cattle. I then outline four (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Should Moral Vegetarians Avoid Eating Vegetables?Christopher Bobier - 2019 - Food Ethics 5 (1-2).
    David DeGrazia and Stuart Rachels, among others, offer moral arguments in favor of adopting a vegetarian diet that have, they claim, broad appeal. Rather than relying on an account of animal rights or a particular ethical theory, these arguments rely on the moral principle that an extensive amount of pain requires moral justification. Since people do not need to eat meat in order to survive, the arguments conclude that the pain that animals experience in factory farming is unjustified. I argue (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark